Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of the pro ceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. THE present petition is at the instance of the landlord with respect of house No. 286, Naya Bazar, Ravindra Puri, Sadan, Meerut Cantt. A portion of the said house is in occupa tion of the respondent as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 80/-.
(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed release application against the tenant on the ground that the tenant portion, which consists of two rooms, varandah, courtyard, bathroom, latrine and kitchen is bona fide required by him. It was stated that the petitioner is residing on the upper portion of the said accommo dation which consists of two small rooms, bathroom, latrine and kitchen etc. THE family member of the landlord consists of father, mother, one unmarried sister, one brother, wife and two daughters. THE release application was con tested by denying the need of the landlord. It was stated that the landlord along with his family members is comfortably residing in the accommodation in his possession. It was also pleaded that the landlord has a big accommoda tion in village Mamepur which is 7-8 kms. away from Meerut Cantt. Where in he is residing with his family members. THE landlord is a moneyed person and he lias got agriculture land. The prescribed authority, after taking into consideration the evidences of the respective parties, held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine and he will suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected. Consequently, it ordered release of the disputed accommodation in Case No. 8 of 1998. The order of the prescribed authority is dated 10.3.2000. The said order was challenged in appeal by the tenant being Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 2000 Ajai Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar. The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2001. The Appellate Court found that in the voters' list relating to the village Mamepur, the name of the petitioner is recorded therein. It was very much influenced by the fact that the landlord has got considerable agriculture property at village Mamepur, therefore, an infer ence was drawn that the petitioner along with his family members is residing at village Mamepur also. The need of the petitioner was thus not found bona fide and genuine. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is voluminous ev idence on record to show that the petitioner along with his family members is residing at Meerut on the first floor of the building in question. Further it was pointed out that the tenant-respondent's wife has been allotted a house on in stallment basis by Development Authority and, therefore, the need, if any, of the respondent-tenant for the accommodation in question has come to and end.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of tenant respondent submits that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court on the question of bona fide need is essentially a finding of fact. He further submits that during the pendency of the release proceedings, father of the petitioner has expired and the unmar ried daughter has been got married. Therefore, the need of the petitioner, if any, has come to an end in view of the subsequent events. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;